• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of pharmacy practice >Core Outcome Sets: reaching consensus on what to measure in research
【24h】

Core Outcome Sets: reaching consensus on what to measure in research

机译：核心结果集：达成关于在研究中衡量的内容的共识

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In this so-called 'post-truth era', the importance of robust evidence has assumed more significance than ever. Healthcare needs to be informed by rigorous research that can underpin practice and healthcare delivery and ultimately improve outcomes for patients. But in the development and implementation of studies that will generate the necessary evidence, what outcomes should be measured? A cursory overview of studies performed in any given area reveals a huge number of outcomes being measured, making evidence synthesis and assessing the overall effectiveness of interventions very difficult. For example, Beuscart et al. undertook a systematic review of trials in medication review in older people, reporting that 327 different outcomes were identified in 47 published studies. There was marked heterogeneity in the outcomes used, with adverse events and patient-related outcomes poorly evaluated. In another field of research, more than 25 000 outcomes had appeared only once or twice in oncology trials. Therefore, in an effort to overcome the issues of range and heterogeneity within outcome selection, the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative was established (http://comet-initiative.org/). COMET advocates for the development and application of agreed standardised sets of outcomes known as 'core outcome sets' (COSs). A COS represents the minimum that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition or field of research. The COMET website maintains a database of all ongoing and published COS studies to minimise duplication and share examples of good practice. Recently added COS projects include 'Development of an International Core Outcome Set for Best Care for the Dying Person', and 'Development of a provide core domain set for polymyalgia rheumatica' (http://comet-initiative.org/).
机译：在这个所谓的“后真理时代”中，强劲证据的重要性假设了比以往任何时候都更重要。需要通过严谨的研究来了解医疗保健，可以为患者提供实践和医疗保健，并最终改善患者的结果。但在开发和实施的研究中会产生必要的证据，应该测量结果？在任何特定地区执行的研究概述揭示了衡量大量结果，使证据合成并评估干预措施的总体效率。例如，Beuscart等人。对老年人的药物审查进行了系统审查，报告说明了47项公布研究中确定了327种不同的结果。在使用的结果中有明显的异质性，具有不良事件和患者相关的结果评估不良。在另一个研究领域，超过25000种结果仅在肿瘤学试验中出现了一次或两次。因此，努力克服成果选择内的范围和异质性问题，建立了有效试验（COMET）倡议的核心结果措施（http://comet-initiative.org/）。彗星倡导者的制定和申请商定标准化结果，称为“核心结果集”（COSS）。 COS表示应在特定条件或研究领域的所有试验中测量和报告的最小值。 COMET网站维护了所有持续的和发布的COS研究的数据库，以最大限度地减少重复和分享良好做法的例子。最近增加的COS项目包括“开发国际核心结果，以获得最佳照顾垂死的人”，并“为多元血小糖型Rheumatica的提供核心领域的发展”（http://comet-initiative.org/）。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号